Apple joins Facebook, others, in support of same-sex marriage

Apple is joining more than sixty companies, including Facebook and Intel, in urging the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down Proposition 8, a California law that prohibits same-sex marriage by defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman. According to Bloomberg, the group that Apple is joining argues that the California ban, along with those in effect in 41 other states, negatively impacts both company morale and recruiting.

“No matter how welcoming the corporate culture, it cannot overcome the societal stigma institutionalized by Proposition 8 and similar laws,” the companies will argue, according to a copy of the brief provided by Orrick Herrington Sutcliffe LLP, the law firm representing the group.

This filing is one of many recent actions by this group and others designed to sway judicial opinion in favor of gay marriage. As for Apple in particular, they have a history of supporting this cause. When Proposition 8 was on the ballot in 2008, Apple issued a statement in support of same-sex marriage, asking voters to reject the measure. The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case on March 26, with a decision expected in June of this year.

It also says:
“I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” (1 Timothy 2:12)
Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel.(Peter 2:18)
“Happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us – he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.” (Psalm 137:9)

So, slavery is ok, misoginy is ok and genocide is ok, but gay marriage is an abomination?

I was going to stay out of this thread.... probably shouldn't have even read it in the first place, as I'm not sure why it matters what Apple thinks on the subject any more than what some particular Hollywood star thinks. Rather irrelevant, though in the USA, it will carry weight, I suppose. Sigh.

But, it drives me up the wall when people who are totally ignorant of Biblical interpretation skills (heck, basic reading and comprehension skills) start tossing verses around. So, here we go:

re: 1 Tim 2:12 - First, while this verse IS debated among Christians as to it's exact application, you're somehow missing the immediate context, which has to do with order in a church worship service. This is kind of like having a sentence in a car manual that says, "Turn the car off before getting out," and bolding declaring that the owner will never get anywhere because the manual clearly state, 'Turn the car off...'

Second, what you're stating as 'have authority over a man' in the Greek original might be better translated into english as usurp authority. So, this could be an interruption of male-headed authority, or causing an imbalance in the sharing of authority. Again, this point is hotly debated, but your usage is just plain ignorant.

re: (Peter 2:18) - That would be 1 Peter, but anyway, how do you survive the world with such poor reading skills? Who was the letter written to? People living in non-Christian places under various kinds of authority, giving witness by their life example to the culture. If you had read the very next verse, you'd notice this is referred to as suffering unjustly, not the way things should be. The immediate context is in:
1Pet. 2:11 - "Dear friends, I urge you as foreigners and exiles to ... maintain good conduct among the Non-christians, so that though they now malign you as wrongdoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God when he appears."
So, now WHY are the submitting to their masters?
And, do you understand the differences and nuances between Old-testament indentured servanthood (slavery), New Testament era Roman slavery, and Now-world slavery?

re: Ps. 137:9 - Seriously? Do I really have to explain basic literature genre to you? And what does stating that out like you have really mean in the first place? Do you think this is some kind of command or teaching? Do you know who the subject of that anguished expression is?

So... slavery is OK? I guess it depends on what you mean by slavery, but you've shown nothing by what you put forward.
So... misogyny is OK? No
So... genocide is OK? No
So... 'gay marriage' is an abomination? No, homosexual behavior is. There is no such thing as 'gay marriage.' (It's like married bachelor.)

Your point? Huh?
The problem is that YOU DID take all your verses out of context, pappy53 didn't.
If you hadn't asked your final question and had included a ';)' maybe I'd buy that.
Modern interpretation? What is that?

Pappy53 didn't take verses out of content, really? Leviticus are instructions Levite priests, are modern americans who wish to marry people of the same sex to be taken in the same context as Levite priests? What about Leviticus 19:27 "Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard", shall we make that law as well? Do you cut your hair or shave your beard? Does pappy53?

What is modern interpretation? In your own words, about Tim 2:12: "this verse IS debated among Christians as to it's exact application", or, as you admit yourself, "Again, this point is hotly debated". If there is debate, there is interpretation. If is done today, it is modern.

So my point is that the content of the "Bible" is not only open to debate, but subject to serious, and I mean serious, translation problems. Let's remember for a second that the selection of books that compose the "Bible" were written in Greek four centuries after the death of Christ. And I say "Bible" because there are several books called the Bible, and I don't know to which you are referring, it depends on your particular brand of faith. Furthermore, modern faith says Leviticus was "compiled" by Moses, over 1000 years before Christ.

But all this is pointless, a civil marriage has nothing to do with a religious marriage. I have no qualms about churches refusing to marry people of the same sex, it is their choice. But the state has no business denying civil marriages to lawful taxpayers.

He absolutely didn't take the passage out of context because the meaning of the part he is drawing from does not change due to context. The nature of God never changes right? He is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow(Heb. 13:8)? It is not the "law" part that let's us know that homosexuality is sinful. What does God say about homosexuality in Leviticus 18(This is not the only passage by the way there are more in the OT and several in the NT as well. I've listed a few examples at the bottom for your reference)? God calls homosexual behavior an "abomination."

Because of this your arguments are not really valid. In every case above, you're not just going based on God calling an action reprehensible, you're talking about specific instructions. God's opinion of an action's sinfulness does not change, but sometimes culturally we have different rules that are perceived by others to be important. And so out of respect, and to create order, we abide by these rules.

An excellent modern-day example of this is that some people think it's not ok for people to wear hats in a worship service. Am I sinning if I wear a hat in worship? Can you find any scripture in the Bible that tells us it's not ok? Well my church doesn't allow it on stage, so why is that? It's because we should respect the others in the body as much or more as we respect ourselves. What do we gain personally by wearing the hat? We should respect those around us, and we should respect the cultural expectations of others.

Now if those cultural expectations are causing us to commit sins, then we need to challenge them. That is what is being addressed in the passages you mentioned, living a Christian life in spite of the cultural norms around the situation. In the same way, in any other situation we find ourselves in we need to more concerned about creating unity in the body than in pleasing ourselves.

In regards to what you said at the very end, that this is all pointless because civil marriage has nothing to do with religious marriage. The laws in place were put there to strengthen society by encouraging monogamous marriage and the traditional "family unit," because it is a stable building block for society. Because of this, most of the tax benefits are related to raising a family.

There are tax breaks if you are the sole bread-winner(wife or husband is the only one working), and if you have children. I don't believe there are any other tax-breaks(although there could be one or two I am missing because I haven't done my taxes myself that last several years). In fact, there is actually a "marriage penalty," which is why many married couples without children often file separate returns.

So in short, gay marriage is not the typical method for raising a family(the children obviously couldn't be their own) and so most of the tax "benefits" would not be benefits to homosexual couples who would likely file separate returns. An argument for "civil unions" can be made for purposes of inheritance and visitation rights, etc.. but laws have not been created for such a purpose because homosexuality is not something that governments have historically endorsed. Why? Because it is not a stable building block for a healthy society. Homosexuality is only endorsed in cultures that are very self-centered, and all about pleasing the individual. Unfortunately, we are living in one today...

Other scriptures directly related to Homosexuality...
1 Cor. 6:9-11(This is probably the most debated passage in scripture because of the word that most modern English translations translate as "homosexual." Paul being very educated though, would have been very familiar with the Greek translation of the OT(the LXX) and it uses the same word in the OT to refer to the abomination of a man lying with a man in Leviticus... This is a direct quote from Bibliotheca Sacra... "It is significant that of all the terms available in the Greek language, Paul chose a compound from the Septuagint that in the broadest sense described men lying with men as they would lie with women.", Malick, "The Condemnation of Homosexuality in 1 Corinthians 6:9", Bibliotheca Sacra (150.600.484), 1996.)
1 Tim. 1:8-11(same word as previous passage)
Lev. 20:13(same as other Lev. scripture. It calls homosexual acts an "abomination")
Rom. 1:24-28(calls homosexual acts "shameful")
Eph. 5:5 (The Greek word for immoral is talking about general sexual immorality and would include homosexuality)
Mat. 15:18-19(Same as Ephesians)

Leviticus 19:27 carries exactly the same weigth as Leviticus 18:22, but Christians seem to cling to one to justify prejudice against homosexuals, and conveniently forget the other. I find this profoundly hypocitical and it completely undermines any biblical argument. No real argument can be made as to why we must adhere to Leviticus 18:22, but can ignore Leviticus 19:27, and any argument to ignore Leviticus 19:27 can be made to ignore Leviticus 18:22 as well. To be an honest christian, you must either adhere to both, or accept that both were valid in different contexts and times, and should be revised. Sorry, but to do otherwise is just hypocritical and self-serving.

You say "God's opinion of an action's sinfulness does not change, but sometimes culturally we have different rules that are perceived by others to be important. And so out of respect, and to create order, we abide by these rules." I completely agree and that is the very argument of the acceptance of gay families, which do exist, have always existed, will always exist, in spite of what religions dictate. But you choose to use these arguments only when they are convenient to you, and that is not only morally wrong, but unfair to those with a different point of view.

You say acceptance to homosexuality it is not a stable building block for a healthy society. Well, my friend, that opinion is not supported by history. Homosexual behaviour is inherent to man as it is to several other species. It has been observed in over 1500 of them, in every animal genre, well documented in over 500, and it has been present in every human society. Homosexuality was a normal part of Ancient Greece, one of the basis of our society, which lasted for over 1300 years, a lot longer than our society. And heterosexual Greeks reproduced just fine during this period, contrary to fears that if we accept homosexuality as part of life everyone will be gay. IN fact, homosexuality was largely accepted in almost every civilization up to the advent of christianity, and those civilizatons spanned thousands of years.

You say "gay marriage is not the typical method for raising a family". Well, judging by divorce statistics, which BTW is quite well covered in Romans 7:2-3 and Matthew 19:6, among many others, and also conveniently ignored by christians, I say heterosexual marriage soon won't be the typical method of raising a family. I say that love marriages are the typical method of raising a family, be that homosexual or heterosexual. Those marriages are a reality in our society, they have always been.

umm #1 that wasnt for "levite priests" that was for everybody
#2 orthodoz jews follow those laws thats why they have beards and long "peyos" side curls of hair, also dont eat pig, or milk and meat together and a million other things it says in the bible.

#1 Leviticus is a guideline to priests, that's why the first half is a detailed manual on how to make sacrifices. The second half is what the priests should say and that is where the passages are, including the one on not to cut your hair or trim your beard.

2# Yes, and I completely respect the criticism from orthodox jews exactly because they are not hypocrits.

I don't have to keep my beliefs to myself, and the Holy Bible is the source for Christian living. Saying that I shouldn't be trusted because I believe in God's word is pretty messed up on your part. So you should be trusted because you don't believe? This country has gotten into much worse shape since liberals started taking out it's core beliefs, which is the word of God.
And BTW, do you have to use that kind of vulgar language?

Not all the time at least, but GLBT activists ARE trying to alter the basic foundations of society through the law of the country. That IS up to me, regardless of my religious views.

re: morals - without religion, there is no such thing as objective morality in the first place.

I could take all your citations, one by one (see my above post)... but it simply isn't worth my time given the attitude you've displayed already. There are obviously much bigger fish to fry before you get into details of particular verses. I'm sure you could improperly cite bunches more.... I have little doubt of that!

Morals have nothing to do with religion, that is a common mistake. You should not kill or steal because it is unfair to the other person and thus plain wrong, not because there will be punishment in the afterlife or because god said it is wrong. No sane person should need to read the Bible to reach that conclusion.

In fact, atheists can be quite more moral than theists, since their moral is based on logic, respect and civility, and not on guidelines written on an old book full of inconsistencies. The basic foundations of our society have nothing to do with religious beliefs, that is why they work for everybody, christians, jews, muslims, atheists, budhists etc. Non-theistic religions, such as Budhism, do quite well on morals too, arguably much better than theistic religions such as Christianism.

Sorry to be a stickler for detail... but I hear this kind of statement too often. A hypocrite wouldn't be if they did those things (but still held them to be morally wrong), but instead, if they used the verses to tell YOU no, but then believed THEY didn't need to obey that same thing. If we're talking about other things from the same Biblical code, then they might just be inconsistent or confused, and yes, possibly hypocritical too. But, it would depend on their stance towards the issue.

So, if I tell you the Bible says not to lie, but then I lie and don't feel remorse over it... that would be hypocritical. Failure isn't hypocrisy. If I lie, but believe it to be wrong and am remorseful about it... and then tell you you should not lie, that is not hypocritical.

Yeah, sorry to call you on that too, but hypocrisy is defined as the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform, so yeah Jenna Jameson is right.

Furthermore, admiting failure and insisting on quoting bible verses only exacerbates the hypocrisy, it does not diminishes or nullifies it. Remorse has nothing to do with hypocrisy, it is only a means for the hypocrit to self-justify his behaviour.

What if the behavior or act is repeated? Say, you went to the strip bar and lied to your wife about it, felt bad, repented , etc

Week later you do the same thing, week after that. See where I am going with this? Repeated behavior......simply repenting each time gets you off the hook? And yet the person in a gay relationship does none of those things (in this case) is truthful, treats others with respect and yet, this person is going to hell because of the gender of their partner?

“‘Homosexuality is a sin. Homosexuals are doomed to spend eternity in hell. If they wanted to change, they could be healed of their evil ways. If they would turn away from temptation, they could be normal again if only they would try and try harder if it doesn’t work.’ … These are all the things I said to my son Bobby when I found out he was gay. When he told me he was homosexual my world fell apart. I did everything I could to cure him of his sickness. Eight months ago my son jumped off a bridge and killed himself. I deeply regret my lack of knowledge about gay and lesbian people. I see that everything I was taught and told was bigotry and de-humanizing slander. If I had investigated beyond what I was told, if I had just listened to my son when he poured his heart out to me I would not be standing here today with you filled with regret. I believe that God was pleased with Bobby’s kind and loving spirit. In God’s eyes kindness and love are what it’s all about. I didn’t know that each time I echoed eternal damnation for gay people each time I referred to Bobby as ‘sick’ and ‘perverted’ and ‘a danger to our children’. His self esteem and sense of worth were being destroyed. And finally his spirit broke beyond repair. It was not God’s will that Bobby climbed over the side of a freeway overpass and jumped directly into the path of an eighteen-wheel truck which killed him instantly. Bobby’s death was the direct result of his parent’s ignorance and fear of the word ‘gay’. He wanted to be a writer. His hopes and dreams should not have been taken from him but they were. There are children, like Bobby, sitting in your congregations. Unknown to you they will be listening as you echo ‘amen’ and that will soon silence their prayers. Their prayers to God for understanding and acceptance and for your love but your hatred and fear and ignorance of the word ‘gay’, will silence those prayers. So, before you echo ‘amen’ in your home and place of worship. Think. Think and remember a child is listening.” — Mary Griffith

re: "Bobby’s death was the direct result of his parent’s ignorance and fear of the word ‘gay’. " Agreed... but I don't think it was the type of ignorance portrayed in the rest of her story... I think she either didn't pay decent attention in Sunday school or went to a bad one. No well-informed Christian parent would handle such a situation in that manner. It may well be that her church let her down, education wise... but it isn't a problem with the position of general Christian orthodoxy on the matter.

“‘Homosexuality is a sin. Homosexuals are doomed to spend eternity in hell. If they wanted to change, they could be healed of their evil ways. If they would turn away from temptation, they could be normal again if only they would try and try harder if it doesn’t work.’ … These are all the things I said to my son Bobby when I found out he was gay. When he told me he was homosexual my world fell apart. I did everything I could to cure him of his sickness. Eight months ago my son jumped off a bridge and killed himself. I deeply regret my lack of knowledge about gay and lesbian people. I see that everything I was taught and told was bigotry and de-humanizing slander. If I had investigated beyond what I was told, if I had just listened to my son when he poured his heart out to me I would not be standing here today with you filled with regret. I believe that God was pleased with Bobby’s kind and loving spirit. In God’s eyes kindness and love are what it’s all about. I didn’t know that each time I echoed eternal damnation for gay people each time I referred to Bobby as ‘sick’ and ‘perverted’ and ‘a danger to our children’. His self esteem and sense of worth were being destroyed. And finally his spirit broke beyond repair. It was not God’s will that Bobby climbed over the side of a freeway overpass and jumped directly into the path of an eighteen-wheel truck which killed him instantly. Bobby’s death was the direct result of his parent’s ignorance and fear of the word ‘gay’. He wanted to be a writer. His hopes and dreams should not have been taken from him but they were. There are children, like Bobby, sitting in your congregations. Unknown to you they will be listening as you echo ‘amen’ and that will soon silence their prayers. Their prayers to God for understanding and acceptance and for your love but your hatred and fear and ignorance of the word ‘gay’, will silence those prayers. So, before you echo ‘amen’ in your home and place of worship. Think. Think and remember a child is listening.” — Mary Griffith

Bible believing Christians will never look to go against what the Bible says no matter what the case. While it is not in the Bible to persecute those who live or do things differently does state that we are not to add or modify it to meet the needs of those who do not adhere to its rules. If people want to live there lives however they want that is their business but there is no chance in Heaven or Hell that Christianity should/will change to please sin. It will never happen

Now back to the point of the article who cares if Apple supports gay marriage Tim Cook is gay, Steve Jobs accepted people who came out to him and the iPhone still rocks. I like chocolate my father hates it he prefers vanilla .......

If we follow the Bible, it began with just a man, Adam, created from dust of the ground. After creating the Garden of Eden, rivers, precious metals, stones, farm animals, birds, forbidden knowledge etc. God finally created Eve, but it was much later.

If we follow reality it is quite more complex, we would need to define humanity first. If we go with Homo Sapiens, that would be the evolution from Homo Heidelbergensis in Africa, around 200.000 years ago.

About Adam and Eve, they had two sons, Cain and Abel, then Cain killed Abel, went east and met...his wife(?!), whose people magically live in the land of Nod. I wonder if Cain's mother in law had birth pains...being that an eternal curse on women from our loving God and all, but she was not a descendant of Eve...wait...

And the Supreme Court of the US decided in Brown vs. Board of Ed. that Separate is not equal. Therefore, a civil union doesn't protect the same things as a marriage. Plus, what if you belong to one of the growing number of denominations of Christianity that are allowing for marriage equality (because I didn't take a gay shower this morning, I showered. I didn't take a gay drive in my car this morning, I just took a drive) within their churches? Does your one small minded sect of Christianity speak for all Christians? No.

Pretty sure that if a sect of christianity is allowing for same sex marriages, then they aren't actually a sect of christianity, or at least they are an interesting sect that doesn't follow the bible.... which makes it hard for them to be chrisitian. As for my "one small minded sect," I don't believe in god.

You are comparing segregation to same sex marriage. I don't understand that comparison. You then throw up some more mishmash about taking a gay drive or a gay shower. A shower is something that has a definition. Marriage is something that can be defined. It just so happens that marriage also grants certain extra rights under U.S. law. These rights can easily be granted to civil unions.

Using similar examples to what you did only using ones that actually work:
Shower - definition A.
Golden Shower - definition B.
Marriage - Union between a man and a woman. Grants A, B, C.
Civil Union - Union between two members of the same sex. Grants A, B, C.

See how we take two different things and give them each their own definition? Now you have two different things, and they ARE different, but they each grant the same rights. No one has a legitimate reason to be upset, sure some people will still be upset, but they won't have a legitimate reason.

Yea... California, the place where the Constitution apparently isn't good enough, so put things to a pure democratic vote.... UNLESS that vote ends up in disagreement with the liberal agenda, at which point it will be overridden by judges, or if necessary money and power.

That said, I think this is pretty inevitable anyway. When brains are shutoff, things can head just about any direction.

This is pretty unsurprising. Apple has always been very pro love and lifestyle; they offered the partners of Apple employees health coverage for years, married or otherwise. Though it's nice to see an official movement from them, I can't say this shocked me.
I'm curious: as this is an Apple centric blog (part of the Mobile Nation, I know, but bear with me) and some of the commentators are clearly opposed to the idea of same sex relations, will said commentators cease purchasing Apple products? Or did you comment simply to share your views, apropos of this blogs primary content?

I think it is fine that Apple as a company, wanted to extend such benefits to employees, even though I might disagree with what they are ultimately supporting (which tends to encourage). That said, forcing this into the law of the land is quite a different thing altogether. I think you'd have to admit that, for or against. It's a big deal.

No, it won't stop me from buying their products. First, if I stopped buying products from every company of which I disagree on some political issue, I'd probably have to stop buying... period. I suppose if I had a choice between two reasonably similar products, and one favored my views, that might sway me. If Apple were purposely involved in something horrific, I might try to avoid them. If I were a shareholder, I'd probably voice my opinion that they should't be pushing for something which will ultimately do them damage. Boycotting is something that has to be done very carefully and strategically (cf. the bad example of GLBT folks attempting to boycott Chick-fil-a).

BTW, I'm not sure what the 'primary content' of this blog is supposed to be, but THEY published this article. Why not comment on it?

Not buying Apple products because they support gay marriage would be a bigoted act. Kinda like boycotting an entire restaurant chain because the CEO doesn't support gay marriage.

This has no effect on my view of Apple. What I don't quite understand, is why was this a post on a tech site. Apple is a tech company, but what they do for their employees and what they will soon be using their lobbying dollars for, is not tech related.

I think because it is Apple news. It's probably Apple who shouldn't be getting involved as they are. I'm just surprised some of the other responses seem to think the opposition to GLBT activism shouldn't comment on it.

well with chik-fil-a that was one man saying in an interview what his personal beliefs are, this is companies spending the money they earn from you on lobbying for gay marriage. so there is a difference.

To be fair, I think the GLBT activists would also say that Chick-fil-a supports efforts to lobby against it. I don't think it is at the same level or directness, but I think they at least have a point there.

Whichever side you side on in my opinion is not the real issue. The real issue that should scare most americans is that Prop 8 has gone to the voters I believe 2 times and each time, the majority of the California citizens have voted for prop 8, which states that a legal marriage is between one man and one woman. If the supreme court is able to go against what the voters want and overturn this proposition, it is the beginning of the end for democracy. That to me is scary when its not about what the voters want, but what government wants...

If he wanted to push through legislation that allowed him to marry his sister you could. You act as if something is being taken away, it isn't. Something that was never had is being denied. That is not the same thing.

I still don't see why we can't just have legal civil unions as same sex and leave marriages to opposite genders.

I agree and disagree. America isn't a pure democracy (Thank God!). A pure democracy could be a nightmare. That's why it is designed to be a constitutional republic. The constitution overrides the typical democracy aspect.

But, IF the issue of GLBT 'marriage' really were a matter of constitutional violation, THEN the courts would be correct to override the will of the people. The problem is that this isn't a constitutional issue. Equal rights don't apply to all behaviors (again, Thank God!).

So, then the question is... what is the argument FOR extending similar or equal governmental promotion of a particular societal behavior? And, with any good policy, you have to examine the implications as well.... so if such changes are made, based on the same criteria, what other behaviors would also need to be promoted? Then, looking at all that, is such a change beneficial or detrimental to society?... and enough so to put resources behind it? (Note: nothing about religion here at all.)

All religion aside, the people of the state went to the polls and cast their vote. And because certain people do not like the out come, we have this silly situation. The notion that one person / one vote is falling apart. The notion that the majority rules is long gone. The will of the minority is being placed ahead of the voice of the majority. The fact that this was allowed to go thru the court system is a true shame. This issue is not important to a majority of Americans. And as a side, why is it the side that claims tolerance of all people are the first to label all those that don't agree with their position? If you voice that opinion against this on religious grounds, you are labeled as some sort of fanatic. Funny, I don't think the Koran approves either. But you don't see those people being labeled. And if you want to talk about a strict interpretation of something........

Why should bible thumpers give a shit who marries who? You are better off checking yourselves and keeping your own house in order, and stop worrying what goes on in another persons home that does not affect you in the least.

Protecting the sanctity of marriage? Yeah right. If you want to ban anything, don't allow tool bags like the Kardashians marry. They surely are not good spokespeople for "straight" marriage or your cause.

Well, I don't know about bible-thumpers and all, but I'll take a crack at answering your questions. (and hopefully in a bit more charitably manner as well)

First of all, no one is debating about what goes on in another person's home here. GLBT folks have been free to practice just about whatever they want in their own homes for quite some time now. (And, I'd grant that, no matter my personal position, this wasn't so in the past... and that our current situation is better for the sake of personal liberty. I certainly don't want the government policing the bedroom any more than you do.)

Second, I'll agree that the 'sanctity of marriage' has already been largely tossed out the window, with the advance of secularism, the adoption of no fault divorce, and the like. We're talking primarily about government (the State) policy here, not religion (though for religious people, their religion will influence how they view the role of the state, laws, etc.). If marriage were merely a legal contract between parties that the State simply helped them enforce, then I agree, make it whatever the masses please.

But, I'll reverse the question? If marriage is such a non-big-deal, as you seem to be indicating, why does this fight matter so much to the GLBT activists? Here's a hint; it isn't so they can avail themselves of it, as in places where such benefits do exist, a very small percentage of the the GLBT population take advantage of them (if my memory serves correctly, low single digit percentages).

But, why worry about what someone else does that supposedly doesn't affect me? Because it does affect me in a number of ways, directly and indirectly. First, it will directly affect my pocket-book. For the State, marriage is a benefit which costs taxpayers. The State deems it worth it, because they are expecting a return on that investment (stable society, primarily though a good next generation). Why else would the State care what's going on in people's homes (as you noted)? Financial costs alone might not be a good reason to be against same-sex-'marriage' (some might argue), but we have to keep in mind why the State should even be involved in the first place.

Second, I'm directly affected in terms of personal liberties, religious freedom, and parental rights. Look at how certain cities were trying to deny Chick-fil-a business opportunity because they haven't stepped inline with the GLBT agenda. Will my business be next? Where was that where the ACLU banned father-daughter dances in a school, as it was deemed gender stereotyping? Once you actually get rid of gender distinction, legally, it opens all sorts of potential cans-of-worms. I know people who have lost jobs and contracts because a GLBT person complained about the PERSONAL VIEWS of some other individual... and the really funny thing is that HR usually deems such actions part of 'promoting diversity.' Um, OK.

Need I lay out how religious liberty is going to be affected? Just take a peek at the 'human rights' tribunals which have already done so in Canada. And, there are already cases where parental rights are being impacted by the GLBT agenda even before the precedent is set through the legal recognition of male-female and same-sex marriage being on equal footing.

And, if our society is looking out for our children (the main secular purpose of marriage, IMO), making such a change will ultimately harm them as well. Studies show that having a mother and father is an important factor in child development. We've already harmed that one a lot by destabilizing marriage. Same-sex-'marriage' would effectively be saying it doesn't matter if kids have a mother and father, or at least we don't find the need to protect their rights in that (cf. check out the UN's charter on human rights related to children some time!).

Then there are the indirect effects. If I'm right about the above, such a move will only further destabilize society. That's going to make the country a less pleasant and more dangerous place to live. Education, health care, law enforcement, social welfare, etc. costs will increase, which will increase all of our tax burden. As productivity continues to decline, our country will have an even harder time competing with the rest of the world.

So, yea, this extends a bit beyond what happens in the bedroom... as the GLBT lobby is brining it out of the bedroom in into our policy and law. That makes it a matter of public concern.

First, it's a bit insulting that me being gay is somehow only related to what I "do in the bedroom". That kind of oversimplifies most relationships.

I don't understand your arguement about how taxes will increase if same-sex marriage is allowed.

Same-sex marriage has nothing to do with boycotting a business such as the case with Chik-Fil-A. I think most people don't understand that through their non-profit arm, they were donating directly to causes that encourage or exercise "pray the gay away" organizations and "family values" organizations that discourage same-sex relationships.

The studies I've read have concluded that it is important to be raised by two adults, not just a mother and a father. This brings in the argument of single mothers or single dads. Is it ok because they are straight they can raise a child by themselves?

If it's true as you stated in the beginning of your comment that LGBT people don't take advantage of the rights afforded to them by getting married, then how would this raise your taxes at all? Being that we are a minority, would you really expect a large increase, let alone ANY?

Most companies are trying to compete for talent domestically and that means attracting the best people. Some of those people happen to be gay and it behooves a business to be in a state where same-sex marriage is legal.

I know you disagree that's fine but it's also disappointing to come to one of my favorite sites and make the mistake of reading comments that call me an abomination among other things.

I am about to step in it, but here goes. I am a pro life, gun owning, Reagan Loving conservative. I cant stand our current administration. But I am also the father of a gay daughter, and support the right for gays to marry in the legal sense of the term. There is a difference between a church vs civil definition of Marriage, and if a organized religion does not want to sanction that, so be it. That does not mean that the civilly recognized union of two adult people (gay or straight) is governed by church law. Your "straight marriage" does not give you and your spouse marriage rights because you stood in a church before a minister. It gives you rights because it is sanctioned and licensed by the county or state you live in. The partner of a gay man dying of cancer deserves to be involved in his care as much as a female partner of a straight man. Quoting from a book that was handpicked by the catholic church and modified to fit their view of the world in the 3rd century does not make you right. It just means you have different beliefs.

Yea, you stepped in it all right. ;)
I don't think the argument is whether the church and civil definition should be mixed. The question is, why is the State involved at all? And, would it benefit or be detrimental to the State and society to extend such benefits to non-male/female couples? (Also, if we decide it would be beneficial, recognize that the GLBT lobby's 'rights' arguments will work equally well for polygamy and polyamory... so the State would soon be supporting those too. Heck, it would probably benefit a Father to 'marry' his Son, legally and financially, as one journalist in the UK pointed out.) You'd better think this through.

re: "Quoting from a book that was handpicked by the catholic church and modified to fit their view of the world in the 3rd century..."
What? Please don't tell me you can't tell a difference between a work of fiction and actual history. Note: The Da Vinci Code is fictional, folks! Sheesh!

For some reason you seem to take great pride in trying to abuse those who have faith. I have never understood people like you. I dislike those that seek to shove their faith on me, as I have none of my own, but I also dislike those who have no faith that seek to belittle those that believe.

Why does it bother you that someone else believes? Does it make you feel insecure that they could possibly be right? Do you just enjoy being rude to people on a website where you are able to hide behind your keyboard? I think we could all (myself included), use a big dose of apathy sometimes.

I do take pride in it. I will say it to whoever, whenever. If someone can come to a site and tell someone that they are an abomination for the way they live their life or for who they are, then those people should get the same treatment.

At what point does your statement break down though? If someone called someone an abomination for being a child molester, would you still feel that the person calling them an abomination deserved the same treatment?

I don't think going to a message board and telling people they are going to hell for being gay is the right approach. I also don't think mocking people for having faith is the right approach. Replying to fanaticism with more fanaticism usually gets everyone nowhere.

Because this is such an inflammatory topic, I think it would be good if the website moderators locked comments on it. At this point I don't think anything good will be posted, by any side.

You bring up a good point about polygamy. If a marriage is not a union between a man and a woman, then why not allow polygamy? At what point do you define a marriage?

I am all for civil unions. This allows the religious types to keep their sanctity of marriage while still allowing same sex unions that grant the same rights as marriage under law. However, once you allow same sex unions, how long till multiple partner unions?

I was a Blackberry fan before I switched to the iPhone. This was all I needed to push me back to Blackberry. Frankly I couldn't care less what people of the GLBT persuasion do--it's a free country. However, trying to put their type of relationship on equal footing with marriage is going too far, and when a commercial entity decides to stupidly weigh in on the wrong side of the debate--that's when I no longer do business with said entity. Smart businesses stay out of the culture wars, because once they commit to a position, they're inevitably alienating a sizable segment of their customer base.

It is really bad when the government, and some women in this country think that it is okay to kill a baby before it is born. The governor of New York is even wanting to legalize abortions up to full-term, and not even require a doctor! Over 50,000,000 babies have been killed, and the government is concerned about gun control? A child conceived is a blessing, and a gift from God. I don't think that it was meant for mothers to arbitrarily murder them.

I don't remember Sodom and Gomorrah. I wasn't around in biblical times and I have no scientific proof that angels exist and come disguised as men to destroy cities. I guess we should go back to the days of slavery and lynch mobs. Those are some good "morals" right there.

I don't know about the UK but in the United States marriage is a civil union. A religious service is a separate issue. That is why you can get married at city hall. It's why you get a license. And when a country allows marriage of gay people they are allowing the laws of gays to benefit from the rights states give to married people, like right to see someone in a hospital etc. Regardless the religious stuff is for a church. But marriage does not require a church or religion. Politicians are dealing with laws not religion.

Not really a surprise given that Apple has offered same sex benefits to employees since 1993 and in 2008 Apple openly opposed the Prop 8 California ban on gay marriage and donated money to fight it.

People should understand. The Silicon Valley is pretty flaming liberal. I mean the place votes solidly liberal/Democrat. Consider how these areas voted in the last election: Santa Clara county voted 68% dem for Pres, San Mateo county voted 71.3% dem, Alameda 78.8% dem, San Francisco 83.4% dem, Santa Cruz County 72%. Marin Co 74% Dem. Point is if you think the people in these companies don't largely support gay marriage you're not paying attention.

There's almost no Bay Area tech company that I know of that is openly against gay rights. And if there is it's the exception not the rule. Yep, all those tech companies you love are largely FULL of people that in favor of gay love. lol. And every gadget you buy makes them richer and more influential. So keep buying their products. lol.

Trying to understand why the gov't is involved in ANYONE'S marriage. Governments should not be legislating marriage (hetero-, homo- or otherwise). There are other legal remedies available to address the issues (medical decisions, etc.) involved.

marriage is a civil institution. you go to the city hall and get a license. you confuse a religious ceremony with the civil institution of marriage. Government has always been involved in marriage. The problem is religious people simply don't get that marriage is not simply going to a priest. Religion is NOT at all needed for marriage in the United States. And there are not other legal remedies for all medical decisions. And medical decisons are not the only issue. there are survivor benefits, sick leave to care for spouses, insurance benefits, inheritance, wrongful death benefits, immunity from testifying against a spouse, child custody, burial rights, bankruptcy, etc etc. merely saying there is a remedy doesn't make it fact.

I'm not confusing "civil" and "religious" marriage. Marriage was legislated as a "civil institution" subsequent to religious/tradition expressions. Generally speaking, it was legislated as a method of imposing religious beliefs/traditions on all. I understand your argument, but all of these issues (survivor benefits, sick leave, insurance) would have undoubtedly been remedied through case-law without an established "civil marriage"...

as a gay man I'm used to being blindsided no Facebook by all this hate and judgement. I was surprised to read this crap on iMore. People who love it seem to be some of the brightest and smartest and most open people on the planet. I think the people posting all this stuff about bible verses are just trolling through this page. I know where I can go to find all that. I just don't want to find all that here. It'll be a while before I scroll through iMore's pages again if this is what's really going on here. I'm surprised.....but I guess I shouldn't be.

Marriage is between a man and a woman. It is a religious act. I am not saying we should run after people and ban/forbid them from having relations they want but don't redefine the word marriage. It has always been a religious act between a man and a woman. Period.

Marriage is the realization of love in a lifetime commitment. It is a relationship between two people who are committed, monogamous, caring, self-sacrificing, loving, and nurturing.

And marriage is also a matter of law. Civil society, not the church, grants married couples the rights, responsibilities, protections, and benefits of their union. Many people marry without setting foot in a church or participating in a religious ceremony. The freedom to marry is inalienable, and it cannot be abridged by hypocritical adherents of regressive ecclesiastical dogma.

Conversely, a civil union—which is tantamount to separate but equal—is not a substitute for marriage. Federal and state laws provide recognition and continuity of benefits and protections for “married” couples. For example, civil society grants extra-ordinary benefits to married couples in the form of lower tax rates, inheritance, adoption, property ownership, and hospital visitation to mention a few.

The recognition of these benefits and protections are not extended equally, if at all, to civil union couples from state to state or nationally. As a result, civil union couples are treated as de facto second-class citizens. If we believe that the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees equal protection of the law, then we must use one legal term to ensure equal protection for all.

Finally, the tired, irrelevant saw from social conservatives that traditional marriage is between one man and one woman is nothing to hold up as a virtue. For thousands of years, marriage was nothing more than property transfer. The church stood by as women were treated as chattel to be sold to another family in return for money, property, alliance, etc. Traditional marriage was an institution in which women had no rights and no property. In this historical context, it’s no mystery why in “modern” society women are valued less than men, and why the humiliation and abuse of women by men is still tolerated.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once said that the “arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.” Thanks to Iowa and other states, this nation’s journey towards civil rights and dignity for all shall endure.

I am guessing you are straight, correct? If that is the case, what day and year was it when you made the choice to be straight? "Hmm, men or women.......I choose women." Wrong answer, because it never happened. So are you saying that those born wanting to be with a same sex person did not have the same choice? Who in their right mind would choose to be gay? To be persecuted in public if you are walking hand in hand with your partner?

People are not born gay, it is a choice that they make. And children adopted by gay couples are subjected to that lifestyle every day of their youth, and think that it is the only way to live. That is a shame for the children.

Here is a thought: if same sex marriage becomes legal, will it be held to the same standards regarding common law marriage? If so that would cause a lot of people that didn't want to get married to be forced into marriage, which I think is fair. If you are going to get the good, might as well get the bad.